5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Gravina di Puglia.
6.   The applicant submitted a development plan (piano di lottizzazione) to the municipality of Cassano delle Murge with a view to building housing near the Mercadante forest, On 31 October 1984 the municipality approved the plan. On 1 March 1985 the applicant concluded a development agreement (convenzione di lottizzazione) with the municipality and obtained the building permits for an initial group of buildings.
7.  On 6 February 1986 a ministerial decree of 1 August 1985 was published in the Official Gazette. This decree stated that the land around the Mercadante forest was to be given protected landscape status and as such be subject to the provisions of Law no. 1497/1939, which imposed compulsory prior ministerial authorisation for the issue of building permits.
8.  The municipality of Cassano delle Murge challenged the Ministerial Decree before the Puglia Administrative Court and, under a decision of 10 March 1993, was partially successful. Pursuant to that decision (which is not included in the case file) the land covered by the applicant’s plan was no longer subject to landscape constraints.
9.  Furthermore, two laws had come into force in the meantime. The first (Law no. 431/1985) had granted the regions exclusive legislative powers in the landscape protection field. The second (Regional Law no. 30/1990) made the land adjacent to the forests subject to landscape constraints necessitating authorisation from the Region, except where the development plan had been approved prior to 6 June 1990. Under the combined effect of these laws, plans to be approved after this date had to receive a favourable opinion from the relevant regional committee.
10.  In 1993 the applicant submitted to the municipality of Cassano delle Murge a variant of the plan already approved in 1984. The case file shows that the new variant had been necessary because the original plan had accidentally included an area comprising an aqueduct. It had therefore been necessary to reduce the size of the project by 3,917 square metres. Moreover, the owners of the neighbouring plots had decided not to continue with the project, and so it had had to be modified, particularly where the layout of the buildings was concerned. That variant was approved by the municipality of Cassano delle Murge on 30 May 1994.
11.  On 19 August 1994 the applicant concluded a development agreement with the municipality. The latter issued him with the building permits.
12.  On 21 May 2007 the municipality issued a certificate to the effect that all the buildings constructed by the applicant prior to 30 September 2004 had been in conformity with landscape legislation.
13.  Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for unlawful land development. On 6 February 1997 and interim attachment order was issued in respect of the land and buildings (seventeen blocks containing four apartments each).
14.  In a judgment of 1 June 1998, the Acquaviva delle Fonti District Court noted that the applicant had built seventeen apartment blocks in accordance with the variant approved in 1994 and the building permits issued by the municipality. However, the court considered that this variant was not merely a modification of the 1984 project but rather a new development plan which had to comply with the provisions which had since come into force. Given that the provisions in question required a favourable opinion from the regional committee responsible for town planning and that the applicant had failed to apply for such an opinion, the building permits issued by the municipality had to be considered inoperative.
The situation complained of was therefore that of an unlawful development project which had damaged a protected natural site (section 20 a) and c) of Law no. 47/1985 and Article 734 of the Criminal Code). Having taken account of the mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a nine-month suspended prison sentence and a fine on the applicant. It ordered the confiscation, in favour of the municipality, of the land and buildings covered by the impugned development plan.
15.  The applicant appealed.
16.  In a judgment of 22 January 2001, the Bari Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal and acquitted him on the merits (perché il fatto non sussiste). The court considered that there was only one development plan, which had been authorised in 1984, that is to say long before the entry into force of the 1985 ministerial decree and Law no. 431/1985. It held that in 1994 the applicant had submitted a simple amendment to the already approved plan. The applicant’s land had therefore not been covered by a landscape protection measure and there had been no unlawful land development.
17.  The public prosecutor and the State Counsel appealed on points of law.
18.  In a judgment given on 17 May 2002, the Court of Cassation set aside the impugned decision and remitted the case for reconsideration.
19.  In a judgment of 5 May 2003, the Bari Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of unlawful land development on the grounds that the variant of the development plan constituted a new, separate plan.
20.  The applicant appealed on points of law.
21.  In a judgment of 10 December 2004, the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s appeal, set aside the impugned decision and remitted the case for reconsideration.
22.  In a judgment of 23 March 2006, the Bari Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the offences had been time‑barred since the end of 2002. The court observed that pursuant to the case-law of the Court of Cassation, it was mandatory to order the confiscation in question whether the defendant was acquitted on the merits (on grounds of il fatto non sussiste) or the case was time-barred, where the development plan was objectively incompatible with spatial planning provisions. The court considered the variant as a new land development plan, which meant that regional authorisation would have had to be obtained before the building permits could be issued. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal ordered the confiscation of the land and the buildings thereon within the meaning of section 1 of Law no. 47/1985.
23.  The applicant appealed on points of law.
24.  In a judgment of 11 June 2008, deposited with the registry on 1 October 2008, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
 
...